MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1975471822 · doi:10.1080/00981389.2014.943455

Social Media and Social Work Education: Understanding and Dealing with the New Digital World

2014· article· en· W1975471822 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSocial Work in Health Care · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicImpact of Technology on Adolescents
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersForskningsrådet om Hälsa, Arbetsliv och VälfärdUniversity of Jordan
KeywordsSocial mediaSocial workPublic relationsSociologyWork (physics)Engineering ethicsInternet privacySocial psychologyPsychologyPolitical scienceComputer scienceWorld Wide WebEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Accompanying the multiple benefits and innovations of social media are the complex ethical and pedagogical issues that challenge social work educators. Without a clear understanding of the blurred boundaries between public and private, the potentially limitless and unintended audiences, as well as the permanency of the information shared online, social work students who use social media can find themselves in difficult situations in their personal and professional lives. In this article, we present three scenarios that illustrate issues and complexities involving social media use by social work students, followed by a discussion and recommendations for social work educators.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.764
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.303 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it